Re: [EM] Condorcet mention in a relatively mainstream context
On 06/26/2025 8:07 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us wrote:
Don’t send anything that could be construed as annoying
How much better life would be if you took your own advice.
Sometimes speaking (or writing) the truth annoys dishonest, deceived, or deluded people.
A current example are Trumpers.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 6:46 PM robert bristow-johnson via Election-Methods election-methods@lists.electorama.com wrote:
On 06/26/2025 6:25 PM EDT Closed Limelike Curves closed.limelike.curves@gmail.com wrote:
Could you pass his email along to me and let him know the Equal Vote Coalition is interested in talking to him?
I'll send you, direct, his email address. When you contact him, please be sure you use your real identity and not a pseudonym.
Also, we Condorcetists have talked about Equal Vote Coalition. We're jealous as hell of the organization name and the domain equal.vote (http://equal.vote) . Condorcet deserves that moniker. We are more "equality of the vote" than anyone else (other than FPTP).
Our organization name sucks, in my opinion. But we (the Condorcetists) want nothing to do with STAR or Score or Approval. I'm not on board with everything that Better Choices are doing. They need to get a lot less Ivory Tower. We must not cede to FairVote the term "Ranked-Choice Voting" (Condorcet RCV is as much RCV as IRV is, as are also Borda and Bucklin).
And we need to point out what the practical consequences are when the "Consensus" candidate (a.k.a. Condorcet winner) is not elected with IRV. We need to make it clear that when that happens, the election is spoiled, voters are punished for voting sincerely (thus incentivizing tactical voting), that a simple majority of voters were thwarted and their votes were counted less per vote than the votes coming from the voters who supported the IRV winner. And we also need to make a big stink about the loss of summability that comes with IRV.
CES and EVC both have taken on FairVote a little regarding Burlington 2009 and Alaska 2022, but they the only offer Approval or STAR as solutions. That ignores the obvious question: "If the failures of IRV in Burlington or Alaska were that the Condorcet winner was not elected, then why isn't the solution to just elect the Condorcet winner?" They won't fucking answer the question, they wanna toss the baby (the ranked ballot) out with the bathwater (IRV).
Anyway, Closed, I thought I used to know your name, but I forgot. I will send you Ned's email (I got the emails of the other founders who you see on that page at Better Choices), and you can tell him how you got it. But don't send him anything that could be construed as annoying. So please send him email with your real name and not a pseudonym. For as much as I know, Ned is getting these emails.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Yes, they’re remarkably annoying, aren’t they? Though you may not agree as
you seem to share their commitment to pigheaded stubbornness and
demonization of people who don’t think exactly like you.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 8:18 PM robert bristow-johnson via Election-Methods
election-methods@lists.electorama.com wrote:
On 06/26/2025 8:07 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
Don’t send anything that could be construed as annoying
How much better life would be if you took your own advice.
Sometimes speaking (or writing) the truth annoys dishonest, deceived, or
deluded people.
A current example are Trumpers.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 6:46 PM robert bristow-johnson via
Election-Methods election-methods@lists.electorama.com wrote:
On 06/26/2025 6:25 PM EDT Closed Limelike Curves <
closed.limelike.curves@gmail.com> wrote:
Could you pass his email along to me and let him know the Equal
Vote Coalition is interested in talking to him?
I'll send you, direct, his email address. When you contact him,
please be sure you use your real identity and not a pseudonym.
Also, we Condorcetists have talked about Equal Vote Coalition. We're
jealous as hell of the organization name and the domain equal.vote (
http://equal.vote) . Condorcet deserves that moniker. We are more
"equality of the vote" than anyone else (other than FPTP).
Our organization name sucks, in my opinion. But we (the
Condorcetists) want nothing to do with STAR or Score or Approval. I'm not
on board with everything that Better Choices are doing. They need to get a
lot less Ivory Tower. We must not cede to FairVote the term "Ranked-Choice
Voting" (Condorcet RCV is as much RCV as IRV is, as are also Borda and
Bucklin).
And we need to point out what the practical consequences are when the
"Consensus" candidate (a.k.a. Condorcet winner) is not elected with IRV.
We need to make it clear that when that happens, the election is spoiled,
voters are punished for voting sincerely (thus incentivizing tactical
voting), that a simple majority of voters were thwarted and their votes
were counted less per vote than the votes coming from the voters who
supported the IRV winner. And we also need to make a big stink about the
loss of summability that comes with IRV.
CES and EVC both have taken on FairVote a little regarding Burlington
2009 and Alaska 2022, but they the only offer Approval or STAR as
solutions. That ignores the obvious question: "If the failures of IRV in
Burlington or Alaska were that the Condorcet winner was not elected, then
why isn't the solution to just elect the Condorcet winner?" They won't
fucking answer the question, they wanna toss the baby (the ranked ballot)
out with the bathwater (IRV).
Anyway, Closed, I thought I used to know your name, but I forgot. I
will send you Ned's email (I got the emails of the other founders who you
see on that page at Better Choices), and you can tell him how you got it.
But don't send him anything that could be construed as annoying. So please
send him email with your real name and not a pseudonym. For as much as I
know, Ned is getting these emails.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for
list info
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
I'm pigheadedly stubborn about the truth. And I call out lies and liars.
And I am pigheadedly stubborn about these principles of elections in an authentic democracy:
- well-warned elections
- equal and unhindered access of the enfranchised to the vote
- the secret ballot
- one-person-one-vote (the equality of the effectiveness of our votes)
- majority rule (essentially required if principle 4 is to be adhered to)
- process transparency in counting the vote
- consequential (results are respected by the government and by the
losers - essentially the rule of law and peaceful transfer of power)
I'm completely pig-headed about those seven principles.
Now I would like it if:
- the spoiler effect is suppressed
- voters are incentivized to vote sincerely (i.e. we minimize the likelihood that any voter is punished for voting sincerely)
- third-party candidates, independent candidates, and fusion candidates get a completely level playing field with major party candidates by the government in elections
- money had a far lesser effect in elections than it apparently does in the U.S.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
On 06/26/2025 8:19 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us wrote:
Yes, they’re remarkably annoying, aren’t they? Though you may not agree as you seem to share their commitment to pigheaded stubbornness and demonization of people who don’t think exactly like you.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 8:18 PM robert bristow-johnson via Election-Methods election-methods@lists.electorama.com wrote:
On 06/26/2025 8:07 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us wrote:
Don’t send anything that could be construed as annoying
How much better life would be if you took your own advice.
Sometimes speaking (or writing) the truth annoys dishonest, deceived, or deluded people.
A current example are Trumpers.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 6:46 PM robert bristow-johnson via Election-Methods election-methods@lists.electorama.com wrote:
On 06/26/2025 6:25 PM EDT Closed Limelike Curves closed.limelike.curves@gmail.com wrote:
Could you pass his email along to me and let him know the Equal Vote Coalition is interested in talking to him?
I'll send you, direct, his email address. When you contact him, please be sure you use your real identity and not a pseudonym.
Also, we Condorcetists have talked about Equal Vote Coalition. We're jealous as hell of the organization name and the domain equal.vote (http://equal.vote) (http://equal.vote) . Condorcet deserves that moniker. We are more "equality of the vote" than anyone else (other than FPTP).
Our organization name sucks, in my opinion. But we (the Condorcetists) want nothing to do with STAR or Score or Approval. I'm not on board with everything that Better Choices are doing. They need to get a lot less Ivory Tower. We must not cede to FairVote the term "Ranked-Choice Voting" (Condorcet RCV is as much RCV as IRV is, as are also Borda and Bucklin).
And we need to point out what the practical consequences are when the "Consensus" candidate (a.k.a. Condorcet winner) is not elected with IRV. We need to make it clear that when that happens, the election is spoiled, voters are punished for voting sincerely (thus incentivizing tactical voting), that a simple majority of voters were thwarted and their votes were counted less per vote than the votes coming from the voters who supported the IRV winner. And we also need to make a big stink about the loss of summability that comes with IRV.
CES and EVC both have taken on FairVote a little regarding Burlington 2009 and Alaska 2022, but they the only offer Approval or STAR as solutions. That ignores the obvious question: "If the failures of IRV in Burlington or Alaska were that the Condorcet winner was not elected, then why isn't the solution to just elect the Condorcet winner?" They won't fucking answer the question, they wanna toss the baby (the ranked ballot) out with the bathwater (IRV).
Anyway, Closed, I thought I used to know your name, but I forgot. I will send you Ned's email (I got the emails of the other founders who you see on that page at Better Choices), and you can tell him how you got it. But don't send him anything that could be construed as annoying. So please send him email with your real name and not a pseudonym. For as much as I know, Ned is getting these emails.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
I don’t disagree with you on any of that.
But I will say that
I'm pigheadedly stubborn about the truth. And I call out lies and liars.
is indistinguishable from what a Trumper would say.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 8:44 PM robert bristow-johnson via Election-Methods
election-methods@lists.electorama.com wrote:
I'm pigheadedly stubborn about the truth. And I call out lies and liars.
And I am pigheadedly stubborn about these principles of elections in an
authentic democracy:
- well-warned elections
- equal and unhindered access of the enfranchised to the vote
- the secret ballot
- one-person-one-vote (the equality of the effectiveness of our votes)
- majority rule (essentially required if principle 4 is to be adhered to)
- process transparency in counting the vote
- consequential (results are respected by the government and by the
losers - essentially the rule of law and peaceful transfer of power)
I'm completely pig-headed about those seven principles.
Now I would like it if:
- the spoiler effect is suppressed
- voters are incentivized to vote sincerely (i.e. we minimize the
likelihood that any voter is punished for voting sincerely) - third-party candidates, independent candidates, and fusion candidates
get a completely level playing field with major party candidates by the
government in elections - money had a far lesser effect in elections than it apparently does in
the U.S.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
On 06/26/2025 8:19 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
Yes, they’re remarkably annoying, aren’t they? Though you may not agree
as you seem to share their commitment to pigheaded stubbornness and
demonization of people who don’t think exactly like you.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 8:18 PM robert bristow-johnson via
Election-Methods election-methods@lists.electorama.com wrote:
On 06/26/2025 8:07 PM EDT Michael Garman <
michael.garman@rankthevote.us> wrote:
Don’t send anything that could be construed as annoying
How much better life would be if you took your own advice.
Sometimes speaking (or writing) the truth annoys dishonest, deceived,
or deluded people.
A current example are Trumpers.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 6:46 PM robert bristow-johnson via
Election-Methods election-methods@lists.electorama.com wrote:
On 06/26/2025 6:25 PM EDT Closed Limelike Curves <
closed.limelike.curves@gmail.com> wrote:
Could you pass his email along to me and let him know the Equal
Vote Coalition is interested in talking to him?
I'll send you, direct, his email address. When you contact him,
please be sure you use your real identity and not a pseudonym.
Also, we Condorcetists have talked about Equal Vote Coalition.
We're jealous as hell of the organization name and the domain equal.vote (
http://equal.vote) (http://equal.vote) . Condorcet deserves that moniker.
We are more "equality of the vote" than anyone else (other than FPTP).
Our organization name sucks, in my opinion. But we (the
Condorcetists) want nothing to do with STAR or Score or Approval. I'm not
on board with everything that Better Choices are doing. They need to get a
lot less Ivory Tower. We must not cede to FairVote the term "Ranked-Choice
Voting" (Condorcet RCV is as much RCV as IRV is, as are also Borda and
Bucklin).
And we need to point out what the practical consequences are when
the "Consensus" candidate (a.k.a. Condorcet winner) is not elected with
IRV. We need to make it clear that when that happens, the election is
spoiled, voters are punished for voting sincerely (thus incentivizing
tactical voting), that a simple majority of voters were thwarted and their
votes were counted less per vote than the votes coming from the voters
who supported the IRV winner. And we also need to make a big stink about
the loss of summability that comes with IRV.
CES and EVC both have taken on FairVote a little regarding
Burlington 2009 and Alaska 2022, but they the only offer Approval or STAR
as solutions. That ignores the obvious question: "If the failures of IRV in
Burlington or Alaska were that the Condorcet winner was not elected, then
why isn't the solution to just elect the Condorcet winner?" They won't
fucking answer the question, they wanna toss the baby (the ranked ballot)
out with the bathwater (IRV).
Anyway, Closed, I thought I used to know your name, but I forgot.
I will send you Ned's email (I got the emails of the other founders who you
see on that page at Better Choices), and you can tell him how you got it.
But don't send him anything that could be construed as annoying. So please
send him email with your real name and not a pseudonym. For as much as I
know, Ned is getting these emails.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em
for list info
list info
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
On 06/26/2025 8:46 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us wrote:
I don’t disagree with you on any of that.
Oh, yes you do.
But I will say that
I'm pigheadedly stubborn about the truth. And I call out lies and liars.
is indistinguishable from what a Trumper would say.
Yes, but it's in the content of what they say. Same awful problem with Young Earth Creationists, Flat Earthers, Anti-vax Conspiracists, Never-Flew-To-The-Moon Conspiracists, etc.
Sure Trumpers can say that I'm lying when I say that Biden legitimately won the presidential election in 2020. They call me "liar" and I call them "liar". Litigation is full of "he said, she said" or "they say, we say" litigants. They can't all be telling the truth. So then the jurists must examine what is said, what the evidence is and the quality of the evidence, and the logic behind the claims and how it comports to the evidence.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
And who are these impartial jurists of whom you speak?
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 8:53 PM robert bristow-johnson via Election-Methods
election-methods@lists.electorama.com wrote:
On 06/26/2025 8:46 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
I don’t disagree with you on any of that.
Oh, yes you do.
But I will say that
I'm pigheadedly stubborn about the truth. And I call out lies and
liars.
is indistinguishable from what a Trumper would say.
Yes, but it's in the content of what they say. Same awful problem with
Young Earth Creationists, Flat Earthers, Anti-vax Conspiracists,
Never-Flew-To-The-Moon Conspiracists, etc.
Sure Trumpers can say that I'm lying when I say that Biden legitimately
won the presidential election in 2020. They call me "liar" and I call them
"liar". Litigation is full of "he said, she said" or "they say, we say"
litigants. They can't all be telling the truth. So then the jurists
must examine what is said, what the evidence is and the quality of the
evidence, and the logic behind the claims and how it comports to the
evidence.
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info
On 06/26/2025 8:54 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us wrote:
And who are these impartial jurists of whom you speak?
Not all jurists are impartial. I didn't use that word (not yet, anyway).
The answer to that question depends entirely on the context.
Perhaps, in the issue that you and I dispute, they are the others in this mailing list. That is why I responded publicly to your privately-emailed snark (which is okay, you can snark at me in private, but don't count on me not tattling).
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
I don’t care if the list sees what I say to you. I certainly don’t make it
a secret on my public messages. I just think the rest of the list might not
be terribly concerned with seeing us trading barbs.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 8:59 PM robert bristow-johnson via Election-Methods
election-methods@lists.electorama.com wrote:
On 06/26/2025 8:54 PM EDT Michael Garman michael.garman@rankthevote.us
wrote:
And who are these impartial jurists of whom you speak?
Not all jurists are impartial. I didn't use that word (not yet, anyway).
The answer to that question depends entirely on the context.
Perhaps, in the issue that you and I dispute, they are the others in this
mailing list. That is why I responded publicly to your privately-emailed
snark (which is okay, you can snark at me in private, but don't count on me
not tattling).
--
r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
.
.
.
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
info